Revisited and reviewed: The Zeiss ZF.2 2/100 Makro-Planar T*

I’ve actually owned two of these lenses. My first experience was in mid 2010, with the D700 and after discovering the joys of Zeiss microcontrast; I found it stonkingly sharp, very contrasty, yet capable of delivering images with a rich saturation and three-dimensional pop. In other words, very much in line with the rest of the Zeiss ZF lineup.

A study of apples, 1. Inspired by the lighting of the old Dutch Masters. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

This lens is my second one – now revisited because I feel the need to find lenses capable of making the most of the D800’s incredible resolving power. Between watches and food, I shoot a lot of macro work. This also means that I’ve got some specific requirements that can only be addressed by a mixture of several lenses; a tilt-shift for increasing depth of field in one plane, or moving the camera out of reflections; something short for use with extension tubes to produce high magnification; something longer to produce better separation/ isolation; and finally, something in a normal focal length that can focus a bit nearer if required.

A study of apples, 2. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

I’ve had everything in each category so far until the something longer. The Nikon 105/2.8 VR was my previous choice of all-round macro, but it did have some fairly annoying CA issues that wouldn’t be remedied until stopped down by quite a bit; and the working distance at high magnification was actually pretty short because the non-extending internal focus design necessitated shortening the focal length at nearer distances. I replaced it with the 60/2.8 AFS, which I’ve always felt was a little better optically.

Two-tone pears. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Enter the Zeiss ZF.2 2/100 Makro-Planar T* (hereafter the 100MP). It’s a full stop faster than the Nikon at f2, which it impressively maintains throughout the focus range; it also doesn’t shorten the focal length as it focuses closer, which maintains working distance, as well as minimizes focus breathing (especially important for videographers). The downside, of course, is that a huge amount of extension is required to deliver only 1:2 magnification (extension for a given magnification is proportional to the focal length). 1:1 would have been nice, but I honestly don’t know where they’d pack that extra helicoid. Near focus limit is 44m at 1:2 magnification, with a clear 20+cm of working distance in front of the lens barrel (less if you choose to use the hood).

This is not a small lens when fully extended at maximum magnification with the hood on.

What does amaze me about the 100MP is its ability to cut an image into very clear planes; at every aperture there’s an abrupt transition between in focus and out of focus; in this regard, it reminds me a lot of the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH-M which has a similar ability. This impression is further reinforced by a complete lack of ghosting or fringing of any sort around the focal point, even at maximum aperture. The lens also produces excellent bokeh; out of focus areas are rendered as walls of blur, with no harsh edges or double imaging. The sole exception to this is the occasional cats’-eye-shaped highlight from very bright off-center sources. The iris is placed in the center of the lens’ optical elements, and made up of 9 blades with rounded edges. (The only perfect circle you get is at f2).

Bokeh. Note odd ellipses from off-center. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

It’s a moderately complex 9/8 optical design, which doesn’t use any aspherical elements (as is traditional for Zeiss) – relying instead on different types of glass and the excellent T* coating to keep optical aberrations at bay.

Once again, the coating does its job admirably – flare is very minor, and in fact, almost nil when you use the supplied deep hood; contrast is always excellent, and the microcontrast rendition is superb – very much three dimensional and ‘like a Zeiss’. Color is warm and fully saturated; the lens’ spectral transmission matches that of its siblings, but will probably require some correction if you’re going to use it with those from another manufacturer. And needless to say, as a macro lens, it delivers an almost completely flat plane of focus.

However, there’s no such thing as a perfect lens – although some manufacturers might claim there is – but the 100MP comes pretty close, in my opinion. Its one sole flaw is longitudinal chromatic aberration caused by uncorrected spherochromatism – in plain text, it’s colored fringes on out of focus highlights (‘bokeh fringing’). It’s especially noticeable front-back on a high contrast subject. The only way to avoid it is by stopping down to f4 or smaller, or some handy Photoshop work with the sponge tool in post processing.

That fruit I can never pronounce. No bokeh fringing because of the relatively low contrast subject. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

I just want to touch on one last optical property before talking about build quality and some general observations/ conclusions – and that’s diffraction. Although the primary driver of exactly when diffraction kicks in is down to the pixel density of the sensor, I can’t help but notice that there is also definitely some effect caused by the lens used – perhaps this is related to focal length shortening and effective apertures at different magnifications; I’m not absolutely sure. All I know is that if I compare this lens at f22 and the Nikon 60/2.8 G at an indicated f22, the Zeiss does seem a fraction softer – I’d continue the comparison at smaller apertures, but there aren’t any more on the Zeiss.

Sinn 756 S UTC. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Moving on to the physical qualities of the lens – like all the ZF/ZE optics, it’s a superb thing to use. The lens is all metal, with a buttery smooth focusing action, and incredibly solid feel. The felt-lined hood locks on to the end of the lens by means of a bayonet mount (in chrome). Let’s just say the lenses feel like instruments, rather than disposable plastic toys. Actually, I do have some criticisms to do with both the cosmetics and the construction, though. Firstly, the red distance markings for feet are too dark and nearly impossible to read unless it’s fairly bright; this holds true for all Zeiss lenses.

Hommage a Monet. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

The flocked hood is great at reducing stray light, but it’s also great at picking up lint, and the front edge is easily dentable – if only they would put a small rubber lip on it. I know it’s a macro lens, and the feel is superb, but the focus throw is just much too long – half a turn should be more than enough; the Nikons do this and get to 1:1; there’s no need to have a whole turn of rotation. It makes things slower to use than they have to be. Oh, and despite this huge distance turned…infinity to three meters is probably less than about 10 degrees of rotation.

Mount Yotei Dawn. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Finally, it’s a macro lens: for photographing objects, with the lens in close proximity, which may or may not be reflective. The chrome hood bayonet looks magnificent, but it’s also the cause of a huge hotspot (hot ring?) in many shiny objects. The hood helps to some degree, but you can still see the inside of it a little. And that brings me to the nameplate on the lens: white lettering on the black front rim – guess what, this reflects off your subjects too, and has to be retouched out. Again, it’s not as bad when the hood is used (and much, much worse on the 2/50 Makro Planar because of the even shorter working distance of that lens) – but it should be black, or put somewhere else. Better yet, include with the lens a plain matte black blanking ring that covers both the chrome hood bayonet and the nameplate ring when the lens is used specifically for macro work.

Lips. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

This is perhaps one of the easiest lens reviews I’ve written: the optics are stunningly good, and there are no complaints here. Within it’s optimal working range – it’s fantastic, and longitudinal chromatic aberration aside, can’t be beaten. That said, the LoCA we see here is no worse than any of the other 100/105mm lenses on the market. It’s not only a great macro lens, but it also does very well at longer distances too – I actually like to use it for landscapes, because its tonal rendition really makes scenes pop. You can use it for portraits, but your subjects had better have perfect skin…at least bokeh will be beautiful, though.

Spot the mosquito (hint: click on the image, and look near the ear). Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

If you do any sort of macro work, or are an aficionado of great optics, I can’t recommend this lens enough. It’s one of the few lenses that can keep up with the resolution of the Nikon D800E even at maximum aperture, and versatile enough to serve both as a macro, a portrait lens, and a short telephoto. I’m now off to tape up the front of mine to go shoot some watches. MT

The Zeiss 2/100 Makro-Planar is available here from B&H and Amazon, in Nikon or Canon mounts.

____________

Visit our Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including Photoshop Workflow DVDs and customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Comments

Hi Ming, thanks again for all of your work on this site 🙂 I have this lens and agree that its wonderful but I was wondering whether its worth getting the 135mm APO for portraits? Or maybe even the 85mm zeiss?

I use the 100mm for landscapes and macro, but have heard that the 135 is better suited to subjects that are at a medium distance?

The 135 is a superb all-rounder, and blisteringly sharp. It should really be an Otus, and would probably be if it didn’t predate that series.

There are three 85 1.4s: the ‘classic’, which is soft but good for portraits; the Milvus, which is the best all-rounder (spherical elements, smooth transitions/bokeh, slightly worse LCA and LoCA performance than the Otus) but also the heaviest, and the Otus, which is superior to the other two except for slightly nervous bokeh highlight textures because of aspherical elements. Depends on what your primary purpose is – can’t go far wrong with the Milvus though 🙂

Thanks Ming! Looks like I may have to try out a couple to see what suits best. Im actually looking for a primary portrait lens so maybe the 85 is enough and I know I can pick up an 85mm zf2 pretty cheap (same price as a new nikon 85mm 1.8g). Im pretty good at manual focusing, but is AF a requirement on fashion/editorial shoots? I have some new projects coming up this year, but have no idea how fast paced I have to be in terms of focusing…

True. I get a good hit rate stopped down to about f/3.2 and youre absolutely right about AF being unreliable so I dont think the MF will play into my decision then. I managed to quickly test out the zeiss 85mm 1.4, nikon 85mm 1.8g and 105mm DC in my local store today and the results were as expected. Clinical photos from the 85mm, but nothing special and the zeiss behaved as expected as well.

The 105mm DC is more expensive but the playfulness of the DC is an interesting element that may make it more enjoyable to use/versatile. Tough to say whether I saw how sharp the lens really is as it may need a little AF tuning, but it was more than acceptable wide open 🙂 Thanks again for the help. Time for me to test the 135mm vs the 105 DC and itll be decided!

I never found the 105DC to be that sharp, honestly; the 105VR is much more consistent/accessible performance-wise, and the supposedly better bokeh of the 105DC never really made that much difference. I’d go with the 135 APO over all other options in this FL.

Interesting…. I never thought of it because I have the 100mm zeiss already. Maybe the APO is the way to go and then I can trade the zeiss for the nikon 105. That way I still have a macro lens and get an AF lens. Have to research the 105 a bit more as I dont know much about it.

Ming, I am trying to choose between the newer Zeiss 100mm F2 Milvus lens or a slightly used Zeiss 100mm F2 lens (previous version) with the fully metal knurled focus ring. B&H has a ever so slightly used one for $1199.95 vs 1843 for the new Milvus version. What do you think?

Hi Ming. I always carefully read your reviews and appreciate your no-nonsense approach. I am considering a lens in this range (90 to 105) for tripod mounted landscape/nature images. Macro isn’t as important to me as mid to long range views with excellent resolving power. I know you also use or have used the Voigtlander 90 3.5 Apo-Lanthar. For my needs, which would you prefer, or maybe suggest otherwise? This will be on the D810. Thank you!

Well, the Otus line would no doubt be the preference but is far outside my budget. Perhaps the new Milvus? I was under the impression that a long(er) focus throw is desirable for precision manual focusing. This is partly why I am now considering the 50 Milvus or 50 Marko Planar instead of the 50 Sigma Art – I hear the auto focusing is inconsistent and the focus throw is short. But in the 90mm range, I’m not sure I want to be dealing with lens conversions as would be needed on the Contax lenses.

Hi,
I ordered this lens ( hoping to be the best lens I’ve ever owned )and while waiting for it to arrive I read around to try and confirm this was worth the money. Great review and your 1st Apples/ Dutch masters picture was just top notch and really shows the color reproduction this lens has on all colors . I’m trying to pick up as many tips on shooting product photography , and you mention using tape on the front of the lens in preparation to photograph watches. Could you explain this technique further? is this for fake bokeh ?

would you recommend the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar as a portrait lens on a Nikon FX camera like the D700/800. I ask as I am searching for a portrait prime lens and I got interested in the AF DC-Nikkor 105mm 1:2 D as I like the idea to affect the bokeh with Defocus Control but the Zeiss might be an alternative.

Hey, Ming. I am looking to buy extension tubes for the zeiss 100 with the d800e. Do you feel the kenko are goo enough to stack all three? I ask because they are plastic and I worry the heavyish zeiss will sag a lot. Does the pn-11 work with metering? Thank you.

So I got those tubes. The only complaint I have (maybe I should have foreseen this with how much the Zeiss 100 extends) is the vignetting; especially stacking all three. As mentioned, I figure what the culprit is, but even with just the 36 (or whatever it is), I do get some vignette; but with all three, I more or less have to crop out that portion. It has not been too much of an issue since I have been enjoying the 5×4 and 4×3 aspect ratios–thus being able to crop out the corners–but it is still annoying. Since you have these as well, I was wondering what you thought of them.

How are you? I recently picked up photography and would like to get your opinion regarding some lenses. I am using a D800 and have the 24-70 2.8, 14-24 2.8, 60mm 2.8 macro D and the sigma 35 1.4. I am contemplating on whether to get the Carl Zeiss 50mm 2.0 Makro-Planar to replace my 60mm 2.8 D lens. I am a big time foodie and I shoot a lot of food photos when I am in nice restaurants (100mm would be too long as you don’t wanna have to move around in a nice restaurant). I read that the Carl Zeiss lens despite being manual focus, produces much nicer colours and really lets the image pop (is it true?), I also read that people use the 50mm Makro-Planar just like a regular 50mm lens (many say it is very good and even better than the Carl Zeiss 50.4) as a walk-around lens? I tried to shoot some portraits (of chefs) with my Nikon 60mm macro lens and the photos don’t exactly look that nice. Just wondering if you can kindly provide your opinion regarding this matter. Thanks so much!

Would you recommend this as a walk around lens? Would it be hard to focus since I will not be using a tripod? And how would you compare this lens to the Nikon 60mm Macro? I really don’t mind buying it if it is indeed that much better.

“It’s a full stop faster than the Nikon at f2, which it impressively maintains throughout the focus range”

The first part is of this sentence is correct, but the second is wrong. Like all lenses which focus by extension the aperture reduces at close range as extension increases. Yes you can set the aperture at f/2 and the camera will *report* f/2 at all focal distances, but it’s lying to you. Nikon AF macros have a nifty trick where they report the true aperture at all focal lengths – set the lens wide open and the camera shows f/2.8 at infinity, but as you focus closer it progressively gets slower to f/4 at 1:2 and about f/5 at 1:1. The Zeiss lens does not report the change in aperture as you focus closer, it’s a mechanical lens with minimal electronics. This also goes to explain your next statement:

“All I know is that if I compare this lens at f22 and the Nikon 60/2.8 G at an indicated f22, the Zeiss does seem a fraction softer ”

That’s because if you are at 1:2 with the aperture ring at f22, the actual aperture will be closer to f32, while the Nikon 60/2.8 G will be at the reported f22. The Zeiss is softer due to diffraction from the smaller aperture.

Always been a big fan of your photos – especially the watch photos, as I’m a WIS as well. =)
I’ve been using a EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM on a Canon 5d2 – I’ve only just heard of this Zeiss lens, and it seems like the lens is a great lens that can be used for many occassions (instead of just macro photos, or watches, for me). If I were to focus just on the macro watch photos, would you still recommend paying the big bucks for the 2/100 or 2/50 (and I’d love to know the practical differences between the two)? I know the Canon is 1:1 where as the Zeiss lens seem to be 1:2 – wanted to know if that made a big impact on what you can do with watch macro photos.

Finally, would love to know if you had a preference between 2/100 or 2/50 – if I were to consider one of them as an all rounder (mostly some scenes, people, and watch macro photos). Sorry if I seem to be rambling – photography is not my forte and would love to get some insight. =)

I’ve seen where you cover lenses you feel are among the better lenses out there for the Nikon D800E. I would appreciate your opinion on the following. I do portraiture both studio and outdoor although primarily studio. I am looking to get involved with shooting food as well. I want to add a new lens for the D800E and I have arrived at 2 choices, one being a Nikon PCE 85/2.8 Micro and the other being the Zeiss ZF.2 2/100 Makro-Planar T. At this point in time can only afford to invest in one of those lenses. Would appreciate your comments and opinion on which one to run with.

I’d probably go with the Zeiss since it’s better for portraits; the 85 has quite a stiff focusing ring and short throw at longer distances, which makes it tricky to use at anything other than macro distances.

Excellent and concise review, Ming. I have recently discovered this lens, and am highly interested in it to possibly replace both my 105mm f/1.8 AI-s and 105mm f/2.8 AI-s Micro. Thanks to those T* coatings it seems to really shine even wide-open, especially compared to my 105mm f/1.8. You wrote this review back in July last year, so a question or two: are you still using this lens, and how do you find its use in your macro/portrait photography? Also, do you happen to use Nikon’s PN-11 extension tube with this lens to achieve 1:1 reproduction? Thanks!

Hi Ming, thanks for all your excellent articles! Based on this review, I just purchased the Zeiss 2/100 ZF.2 and will be taking it on vacation soon- can’t wait! Later this year, I might get 2 more Zeiss primes if I can learn to love manual focus. I’m an advanced amateur at best, so would like to get the most versatility while avoiding overlap. I’m thinking of either:
2.8/15mm + 2.0/35mm or
2.0/25mm + 2.0/50 makro

I currently have a D800 and these nikkors 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and the 85/1.4G which i’ll prob sell if I like the 2/100. If I end up getting the Zeiss 2.8/15, I may sell the 14-24 nikkor as well.

Enjoy the 2/100. No bad choices here – I’d actually go with 2/50 and 2.8/21 personally; the 15 is a bit extreme for general use. You could also replace the 50 with a 35 or the 21 with the 28, there really are no bad choices here (the 1.4s excepted – they just don’t seem to do very well in the D800E wide open, and if you’re not going to shoot them wide open, you might as well buy the f2.0s.)

Thanks for the quick reply Ming. I just walked around with my 14-24 to compare 15mm and 21mm, and i’m not sure I can live without the extra 6, as I do a lot of indoor shots. Gonna be a tough decision, they all look like great options and i’m not really good at shooting with primes- I have a hard time committing to one focal length! The 24-70 has been my favorite. I think I mostly shoot on the wider end between 24-35, and a few at 70/2.8 for a medium telephoto.

Excellent review Ming and wonderful images to back it up. Could you possibly expand slightly on its use for landscape photography and in particular distances over, say, 30 metres? Is there any optical degradation at these distances?I know it’s primarily a macro lens but at this price it will have to multi task. Fantastic website too, btw. Many thanks

Thanks Paul. The lens does pretty well at all distances – no optical degradation that I can see – but the tough part is focusing it accurately without stopping down as the distance scale close to infinity is very closely bunched together. It’s not so much of an issue in practice because you’re not going to be shooting close to infinity wide open anyway.

Hello Ming, inspiring images. PROBLEM WITH D800E and Zeiss ZF2 100mm. I hope you have not covered this before but I own a Nikon D800E and a second-hand Zeiss ZF.2 100mm, but I am having major problems with back focus. I do not want to get another lens as I love everything about the ZF2 100mm. I like to shoot wide open, but if I focus using the viewfinder, either using my own visual sense, OR using the focus dot and arrows, the lens has always back focused when I review the enlarged image later. At a subject distance of around 5m the actual focus point in the reviewed image is around 30cm behind the apparent focus point shown in the viewfinder. However, if I focus using LiveView the focus is always spot on. I get a sense of what the problem is from reading yours and other blogs, but I do not know how to fix it. Is the camera or the lens dud (or both)? Or do I need to send them in for calibration (if so, what does this involve and will this affect every other lens I use on the body after calibration)? I would be very grateful if you could point me in the right direction. PS I have uploaded the latest firmware from Nikon, including the left-side focus problem (although this should not have any effect as the lens is, of course, manual focus). Many thanks.

It’s a pretty simple problem: your mirror is out of alignment. It affects the VF image but not the LV image or AF system. MF cameras had carefully calibrated mirrors because that was the only way to focus; modern SLR screens lack the snap to focus precisely, so the finder system is really just there for framing. You need to send it back to Nikon and tell them exactly what you described – it’s a fairly simple fix but I do not recommend doing it yourself.

Great review supported by some astounding images. Ming, how does the IQ compare between this Zeiss and the Nikon 85 1.4? Also, how easy (or difficult) is the Zeiss to focus for handheld photography – could you use it for street for instance? Many thanks, Tony

…I use the 100 as a street photographer would, focus just pops in. Of all the Zeiss for street, this is the easiest to focus and I do it while they or I am moving and usually work between f2-f4. Have the pictures to prove it too. oneant.com.au. Great review but its a great street lens.

Very nice set of images and nice review.
I like my R 100/2.8 APO with ELPRO 1:2 to 1:1 converter for macro which I will now Leitax convert for my Nikon 800E but can also use with adapter on my Canon 1ds3. I also like my Contax 100/2 for non macro longer distance shooting which is sharp too like 100MP but renders a less contrasty bokeh. than 100MP. But will probably have to get 100MPH for D800E.
For porttraits I like my Contax N 85/1,4 Conurus converted for Canon EF but of course can’t use it on D800E.
Excellent combination of Zeiss color, microcontrast, sharpness even wide open and smooth bokeh.
Better than ZF 85/1.4.
My favorite images of the set are the Japanese train station shot and the1st apples shot.

Sure, I will let you know after I get my Leica-Nikon Leitax adapter.
I am expecting it to work just fine as it is a very sharp lens with little to none CA and LoCA.
The DOF will be less with the 36MP D800E vs. my 21MP 1ds3.

Ming, have you tried a leica apo elmarit-r 100/2,8? Stupendous image quality on a d3x, and with minimal longitudinal CA, but does require the elpro for 1:1 reproduction. I noticed leicas R lenses were absent from your excellent “camerapaedia”(Many Thanks), and was wondering why?

I’ve just put my little toe in Zeiss waters with a ZF 35 F2 that arrived 2 days ago 🙂
What I’m looking at is whether or not the Zeiss lenses can improve image quality over Nikon lenses with my D90 and how much MP count in this regards (IRO image sharpness ex lens rather than ex camera MP).
As you have tried the 100 with both the D700 and D800 can you provide any comparisons (at normal print sizes)?
Thanks for the review. Excellent as always.

There’s a definite improvement, but only if you can focus it accurately – it’s not resolution so much as microcontrast and the way the image is rendered. Try it next to a Nikon 35/2 – especially wide open – and you’ll see what I mean.

Yup, this lens is on my shopping list. I love the fruit still life images, as I have commented before, very painterly – the dragonfly also – beautiful. “Lips” is a fantastic image…well they all are. I think “painterly” is the style I find myself most drawn to, and the D800 & 100/2 combination seems to have it in spades.

Different uses – the 105 shortens its real focal length at 1:1 to keep focusing internal. The Zeiss does not. I have the 60 for high magnification purposes as it’s easier to use with extension tubes.

I don’t own the 135. As with all things, I have to buy them – and since this site isn’t sponsored, nor does it make any money, I only buy things if I think they’ll have a use. 135 is not a useful focal length for me…

Trackbacks

[…] The bokeh, however, is much smoother; it has the character of the ZF.2 1.4/85 Planar and ZF.2 2/100 Makro-Planar, but without the spherochromatism, longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration. There are tiny […]

[…] the Zeiss Distagons. I tested the Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 and 2/28 Distagons with no issues; the 2/50 and 2/100 Makro-Planars were also excellent performers. Out of curiosity and in the interests of science, I’m pleased […]

[…] Revisited and reviewed: The Zeiss ZF.2 2/100 Makro-Planar T*. I’ve actually owned two of these lenses. My first experience was in mid 2010, with the D700 and after discovering the joys of Zeiss microcontrast; I found it stonkingly sharp, very contrasty, yet capable of delivering images with a rich saturation and three-dimensional pop. In other words, very much in line with the rest of the Zeiss ZF lineup. […]